Skip to main content

Reply to this post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: ducats Date: Dec 9, 2007 8:10am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: deadhead

amazingly enough I just got a thought from inside a Tito thread - but not from him ofcourse.

I know it's been discussed b4 but here it goes.

How about just one word (yes/no) responses;

Can you be a deadhead if you were born after Jerry died?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: wineland Date: Dec 9, 2007 11:09am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: deadhead

yes

all the bachheads and mozartheads would have died off a couple hundred of years ago otherwise. think how many devotees to classical music there is today. concert halls in every city across the land play their musis.

now a question to you. in 200 years will they still be playing the dead?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: JodyC Date: Dec 9, 2007 2:47pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: deadhead

yes because in my opinion, a deadhead is more a state of mind, musically, which the dead satisfy and has no bearing on age or anything else.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jackstraw86 Date: Dec 10, 2007 6:45am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: deadhead

I look at being a deadhead as a philosophy, a way at looking at and approaching life. So in that light, yes, anyone can be a deadhead. People can be Buddhist long after the Buddha died.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: darkeyes Date: Dec 10, 2007 7:02am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: deadhead

or a Christian after Christ died and rose again! and "yes" your question.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Dharmachild90 Date: Dec 9, 2007 5:09pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: deadhead

I commend you if you are 12 and like them, take it easy so it doesn't burn you out

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: headgdhead Date: Dec 10, 2007 10:29am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: deadhead

yes

As far as qualifications go, there is only one. If you think you're a deadhead then you are a deadhead. It's a journey not a destination. Everyone reaches certain mileposts along the way that are significant to themselves. I enjoy nothing more than meeting fellow deadheads and talking about our experiences some shared some not but all equally valid. It's all about discovery and where you go from here! IMHO

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: user unknown Date: Dec 9, 2007 3:05pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: deadhead

There is only one person who can classify you as a Deadhead. That, my friend,is you. If we try, all of us could find something to use to disqualify someone else from being a Deadhead. What is to be gained? So if that person born after Jerry's death considers themselves a Deadhead, then they are. Whether they meet your criteria, or not, is unimportant.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Edsel Date: Dec 9, 2007 10:30am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: deadhead

Yes

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Dec 10, 2007 8:30am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: deadhead

Interesting question. Appears from the answers above that most folks agree that if you define it as a "way of being" then the answer has to be "yes," just as for most any label along these lines, if you adopt the outlook, the philosophy, so to speak, then you are one (eg, "christian" or "marxist" or "liberal" or whatever).

I would argue that this is the important sense of the term--the outlook--rather than a more narrow perspective that might indeed be restricted temporally (but if that were the case, how would this narrow definition have real generality? Why would being born tilt the scale? Why not require that the individual had to see them at a given time or with given band members? It seems a slippery slope to me...not that it is wrong, just restrictive and in so being, less useful).

This post was modified by William Tell on 2007-12-10 16:30:39

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: darkeyes Date: Dec 10, 2007 8:36am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: deadhead

I think having to see them hold alot of weight. I aslo think seeing them "with Jerry" holds evrn more. Thoughts?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Dec 10, 2007 9:01am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: deadhead

I hear you; it certainly means something. Just like seeing Christ or Marx would have. That said, though, I think you can "be" a follower by adhering to their teachings, principles, etc., even if you missed out...that isn't to say that there aren't significant differences between those that had the opportunity and those that missed it...just not sure it's vital in debating what it means to "be one of them" in terms of stereotyping someone as a member of the group...

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ducats Date: Dec 9, 2007 8:16am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: deadhead

No.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jerkwaterdan Date: Dec 9, 2007 1:28pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: deadhead

I know a whole lot of younger people who listen to all the same music I listened in my younger days and high school days who weren't even born when the songs came out so the answer of course is yes! Absolutely!
I sometimes ask myself the same thing about many here on the forum who bash Pigpen and wonder if you can be a Deadhead and not appreciate Pigpen, or were born after Pigpen passed away, but I guess you can.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: direwolf0701 Date: Dec 9, 2007 8:25am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: deadhead

yes

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: mcgannahan Date: Dec 9, 2007 8:37am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: deadhead

you can be a deadhead if you like the dead above all other bands. to me, there is no other group. there is only the dead. i only listen to them. you have to have faith in the power of the dead's music.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: WHARFRAT Date: Dec 9, 2007 9:30am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: deadhead

Got to go with mcgann the man on this one.
Sorry one word YES!

This post was modified by WHARFRAT on 2007-12-09 17:30:09

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: ducats Date: Dec 9, 2007 9:45am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: deadhead

no need to apalogize - I'm not looking for more no's than yes's or vica/versa for that matter - just opinions, which as we all know can't be wrong - and like assholes, we all got one!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Nothing Special Date: Dec 9, 2007 12:23pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: deadhead

definately!!!!

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: jglynn1.2 Date: Dec 13, 2007 3:05pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: deadhead

Yes - apparently there were deadheads before Jerry too.

Back in the early part of the nineteenth century the term dead head (at first two words) was a theatrical term for a person who had been admitted without charge, perhaps because they had performed some service such as putting up a poster advertising the event. It was an obvious enough formation, as they were a dead weight, not contributing to the expenses of the production (and, as I can attest from experience, such patrons are often less responsive than the paying customers; a house full of paper can be very hard to play to).

It’s just conceivable it could have been a translation of a well-known Latin tag, caput mortuum, literally “death’s head” or skull. This was used by alchemists as their name for the residue in a flask after distillation was complete. Later it was used for any worthless residue.

The first example known is from a publication called The Spirit of the Times of January 1841: “The house on Tuesday was filled as far as $300 could fill, barring ‘the dead heads’ ”. The same idea turns up in a term of the time for a sponger or loafer, for example, somebody who sat by the stove in a tavern, enjoying the warmth without buying a drink. The verb to dead head followed soon afterwards.

From the 1850s, the usage was extended to the idea of a person who travelled on some vehicle — a train or steamboat, say — without paying, either free-loading or on a complimentary basis. That was further extended to refer to a train crew who were travelling as passengers, either to start work somewhere else, or perhaps to go home. I’m told this usage is still common among cabin crews in the modern aviation business.

This idea had been extended by the end of the nineteenth century to refer to a vehicle (at first usually a train) that was travelling without cargo or passengers, a trip that — like a non-paying member of an audience — was making no contribution to revenue. Later still it shifted slightly to refer to a road vehicle similarly making a journey without any load.

You might think that the theatrical term had come from the idea of a dead flower head, or the action of deadheading one. But this is — perhaps surprisingly — a very modern form, not recorded before the 1950s. Similarly, the term was applied to a dull or lazy person, one who contributes nothing to an enterprise, only in the early years of the twentieth century, well after the theatrical and transport senses had become well established.

Deadhead, for a loyal fan of the long-running musical group The Grateful Dead, derives from one in particular of a set of sixties words in -head, pothead, but with self-mocking undertones of this last usage; it would be nice to think there was a conscious link between it and the original theatrical sense.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: lastcall Date: Dec 9, 2007 12:08pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: deadhead

Exactly what is a deadhead? What is THE definition?

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: AshesRising Date: Dec 9, 2007 12:23pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: deadhead

lastcall: ..I was wonderin' the same thing. Thanks for asking the question.

--- AshesRising

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: DeadHead_10609588 Date: Dec 9, 2007 12:47pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: deadhead

yes

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: staggerleib Date: Dec 10, 2007 11:33am
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: deadhead

In my humble opinion, I think that seeing them, while an amazing almost tabernacle type experience, was not the critical component of their following. I know that I may be off base here, but I have no problem with a deadhead who's never seen them, either with or without Jerry.

That being said, I also don't limit myself to Dead and Dead-related fandom. There is so much great music out there, only waiting to be appreciated. This isn't to say that a huge portion of what I listen to doesn't stem from the GD Family Tree, but certainly, I have no problem with calling myself a DeadHead in addition to many other performers, and fanbases.

The truth, people, afaic, is that life is too short to go around judging others on such arbitrary things as when they were born. This is akin to so many other types of discrimination and bias. Who the heck cares? I don't.
Just my .02.
Stagger

This post was modified by staggerleib on 2007-12-10 19:33:16

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Dharmachild90 Date: Dec 10, 2007 4:45pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: deadhead

I guess the best advice i can give is just take it easy, when I was about 12, I really got into Hendrix and just immersed myself so much, that by the time I was 14 or so, I was burnt out, nothing wrong with mixing some Phish, Roy Orbison, Buddy Holly, Elvis, Muddy Waters, and any other Jam/Blues/ska/rock (before of course rock died in 1979) into your pallet , good thing the Jam band scene is still around.